Partition of India-the story

[wtf]

The reason is obvious on this. We fought/struggled for the independence on the basis of Two Nation Theory, on the other hand you have been voting for a United india.

What else should be written else? Brother and sisters or some do praimee

We were two identities and we still believe that firmly. Already much have been discussed on this, don't want to start it all over again.
Chill

I am not complaining or anything. I thought the idea of the thread was to list out the history of independence from both country's textbook perspectives. I am just nodding my head in agreement and filling in what I remember.

 

[Xeric]

I am not complaining or anything. I thought the idea of the thread was to list out the history of independence from both country's textbook perspectives. I am just nodding my head in agreement and filling in what I remember.

Well it is appreciated.
i will appreciate more if you continue to point out the contradictions as you have been, however trivial they may be.

BTW why don't you quote something directly from the books or online?

 

[Xeric]

End of the Company

Though the revolt failed in its immediate objectives, it laid the ground for a deeper nationalistic approach, which was the first expression of india's yearning for freedom.

As a direct result of 1857 revolt, the English East India Company was disbanded and the govt of india was taken over the Crown with Queen Victoria as the supreme monarch under her famous proclamation of 1858. The Board of Control and the Court of Director were abolished and their place was taken by the Secretary of State for india and india Council. The Queen's proclamation was read out at Allahabad on November 1858. People were promised their rights, pardon was given to all except those who had killed British subjects. The Princes wre promised their former status. Complete freedom of religion was ensured and gradual participation in the administration of the country was also proclaimed.


The Queen's Declaration declared that all agreements and treaties with the rulers and princes will be honored. The old policy of annexation was changed. The famous Doctrine of Lapse was discarded. There was a change in the land policy of the govt. The extension of permanent settlement of Bengal was seriously considered. The govt tried to westernize the indians. It was now felt that the upper classes must be conciliated as the lower classes readily follow them.

The further modifications/developments will effect the fate if india in the years to come....

There was an extensive re-organization of the army in india. The separation of the three armies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras was retained because each group had its own tradition and their distinctiveness had prevented the spread of mutiny. However the Bengal army was completely re-cast. The company's European 1600 strong troops, were paid off or absorbed into the British army. The ratio of European to indian troops in the Bengal army was increased to parity. The artillery of the old army was abolished. Officers continued to be Europeans. Military potions and strategic points were transferred to the European troops. The number of British troops was doubled.

The revolt resulted in the tightening of the control of india from London. The English foreign policy was linked up with European politics. The center of interest in india shifted from external policy to the internal development. The policy of centralization of government adopted through the Act of 1883 was changed and new 'Principle of Decentralization and Indianization' was acknowledged. Legislative powers were restored to the govts of Chennai and Bombay.

Another effect of 1857 was the Muslim renaissance which had been growing in Delhi before the War received an irreparable setback.

When the war broke out both the Hindus and Muslims took part in it in large numbers. The British feared Muslims more than the Hindus. The Muslim population was seen to be more responsible for the revolt than the Hindus and was thus penalized by reducing employment opportunities and by confiscation of property and wealth.

The result was that the British vengeance targeted the Muslims only and pardoned the Hindus.

The result of this was that Muslims came to have a grievance against the Hindus.

The differences between the two began to develop and they drifted away from each other. The problem of Hindu-Muslim unity became impossible to tackle and ultimately that led to the partition of india in 1947.

 

[wtf]

You know a great source for this Information? Americans. In 1857, they hated the British and were pretty Neutral.

Here is a New York Times account of the story.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B01E5D71F3BE533A2575AC0A9659C94609ED7CF

Or this
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B03EFD8173CEE34BC4B51DFB467838C649FDE

A very poetic description of destruction of Delhi
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9805E0D8113EE433A25757C1A9639C94639FD7CF

Things I learned
1) In 1857 India was called Hindustan, but was acknowledged as a peaceful Mohmammadan empire.
2) The word Hindu was used for Indians in general at that time.
3) First two talk of Oudh and Jhansi as the center of revolt, the last article talks of Delhi as the center.

 

[Xeric]

A few words about Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, i'll mainly talk about his efforts omitting the unneccssery items.

First his efforts to remove the misconception between Muslims and Brits after the Independence War, i have added only one step as of now.

EFFORTS TO REMOVE MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
MUSLIMS AND THE BRITISH


PAMPHLET ON THE CAUSES OF INDIAN REVOLT

1. Sir Syed believed that the first essential step towards the betterment of Muslims was to restore mutual trust between Muslim and the British. Without it, he felt, any plan for the renaissance of the Muslims would be useless. He wrote a pamphlet on the causes of the Indian revolt in order to remove misunderstanding amongst the British about Muslim. The British had put the entire responsibility of War of Independence on Muslims and considered them as their greatest enemies. When the war ended the British adopted a policy of mass extermination against Muslims to punish them for their involvement in the war. The Hindus and other nations, who were equally responsible for the war were forgiven and ignored.

2. Sir Syed explained the real causes of the war in this pamphlet and said that Muslims were as much responsible for the war as were the other nations. He wrote that the Muslims were dragged into the war and it was unworthy to blame Muslims alone for the War. He put the responsibility of the war on the government and declared that he dictatorial and oppressive policies of the government contributed a great deal towards the out break of the uprising against the Government in 1857.

3. He pointed out in the pamphlet that as there was no link between the rules and the ruled, the Government could not know the grievances of the people, which resulted in the hatred and misunderstanding between the people and the government. He wrote that because of the ignorance and oppressive policies of the government the embers of discontent continued to smolder resulting in the armed clash with the government. The armed rebellion, Sir Syed wrote, was in fact the manifestation of the discontentment found amongst the peoples about the tyrannical rule of the British. He said that in these circumstances, to hold the Muslims responsible for the war was unjustifiable, as they were dragged into the ear alongwith other nations.

4. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan attributed the following reasons to the out break of War of Independence. According to him the major causes of the war were:-
a. Non representation of the Indians in the legislative councils,
b. Forcible conversion of Indian people to Christianity.
c. Mismanagement of Indian army, and
d. Many other ill-advised measures of the government which created large scale dissatisfaction amongst the various classes of society.

5. Sir Syed translated the pamphlet in English language and dispatched copies to the high officials of the government and the members of the royal family so that the British government should come to know the real causes of the revolt.
6. Sir Syed gave explanation of the word ‘Nadarath’ in a magazine to remove the misunderstanding of the British about Muslims. The British were annoyed with Muslims because they (Muslims) used the word ‘Nadarath’ for the British which they felt degrading and contemptuous for themselves. Sir Syed clarified that Muslims did not use this word for the British to degrade them. He gave the meaning of the word ‘Nadarath’ and wrote that the word has been taken from the Arabic word ‘Nasar’ which meant benefactor or helper. The Muslims, therefore, Sir Syed explained, used this word for the British because they considered them as their helper and benefactor. Sir Syed said that Muslims of India had always held their British rulers in the highest esteem and veneration.

7. He wrote the philosophical explanation of Bible entitled as ‘Tabaeen al Kalam’. In this work Sir Syed pointed out the similarities between Islam and Christianity. He wrote ‘Loyal Mohammedans of India’ in which he gave a detailed account of the services which the Muslims had rendered to the British rulers.

 

[Xeric]

Sir Syed on Two Nation Theory....

TWO NATION THEORY


The entire freedom movement revolved around the two nation theory which was introduced by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was an open minded and a large hearted person. He was a staunch patriot and loved India very much because it was his beloved country. He considered all those who lived in India as one nation and was a great advocate of Hindu Muslim unity. Speaking at the meeting of Indian Association he said, “I look to both Hindus and Muslims with the same eyes and consider them as my own eyes. By the word ‘Nation’ 1 mean only Hindus and Muslims and nothing else. We, Hindus and Muslims, live together on the same soil under the same government. I consider the two factions as one nation.”

. The attitude of Hindus and Congress, however, compelled Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to re-shape his ideas about one nation. He was extremely hurt to see both Congress and Hindus working against the interests of Muslims. Congress had turned into a pure Hindu body and was working on the lines which would have erased the Muslims completely from the Indian society as a nation. Sir Syed always advocated Hindu-Muslims unity and made every effort to bring them closed on one single platform. For this purpose the membership of British Indian Association was kept open for Hindus and Muslims. In spite of the sincere efforts by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to create an atmosphere of amity and brotherhood, the Hindus never came forward with open mind and always adopted a policy to damage the Muslim cause.

 

[Xeric]

HINDI URDU CONTROVERSY

Urdu was nearly 300 years old and considered as the language of the Muslims in the sub-continent from the early times. The amalgamation of Arabic, Persian and Turkish gave birth to a new language which was called Hindustani, Shahjahani and finally Urdu. It was also called as Lashkari because of the fusion of other languages. Gradually the new language of Urdu became the media of expression of the sub-continent. They adopted this language for the expression of their social, cultural and regional feelings. Urdu soon passed through stages of development and became the symbol of Muslim unity and culture. The Muslim and Hindu writers worked a lot for the development of Urdu. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan also rendered valuable services for the development and protection of Urdu. The Muslims, therefore, developed an emotional attachment with Urdu which had attained a status of their national language.

The Hindus, for their eternal jealousy and hatred toward the Muslims and their culture, did not like the rapid progress of Urdu. Urdu was introduced as an official language of the sub continent in 1825 which aroused Hindu antagonism against this language. The British too, were not in favour of any measure which was to promote Muslim cultural values in the sub-continent. The British rulers in order to please the Hindus, began to oppose Urdu to eliminate the influence of Muslim culture.

The Hindi-Urdu controversy began in the year 1867 when Hindus demonstrated against Urdu and demanded its replacement with Hindi as an official language. Some prominent Hindu leaders organized an agitation against the use of Urdu as official language and demanded that Hindi written in Davanagri script should be introduced in the offices and courts as official language. Sir Syed was extremely disappointed to see the Hindus behaving in a prejudicial manner. He was now convinced that the Hindus would never be friendly with the Muslims.

On this occasion Sir Syed expressed his views about Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations for the first time in 1868. He expressed his views in a painful manner to Mr. Shakespeare, the Governor of Benaras and said “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other”.

In view of the Hindu opposition. Sir Syed decided to adopt measures for the protection of Urdu. He demanded from the Government in 1887 that a Dar-ul-Tarjama be established so that the authentic works could be translated into Urdu for the benefit of the University students. The Hindus intensely opposed Sir Syed’s activities for the protection of Urdu but he continued with his efforts to safeguard the language Sir Syed established Central Association in Allahabad and effectively used the platform of Scientific Society for the protection of Urdu.

The Hindus persisted with their anti-Urdu agitation which gradually spread in other parts of the country. In 1871, Georage Cambell, the Lt. Government of Bengal, ordered that Urdu should be scrapped from the syllabus books. In 1900 the U.P Government Anthony MacDonal who had gained widespread notoriety for his anti-Muslim Sentiments, pressurized by the Hindu agitation, issued orders that Hindi should be used as official language in public offices, educational institutions and courts. These orders created a sense of shock among the Muslim of India. Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk criticized the Government decision which had no legal or ethical grounds. He established Urdu defence society which held public meetings on several places to protest against the biased decision of Anthony MacDonal. The students of Aligarh College also protested against MacDonal for scrapping Urdu as official language. These protests by the students of Aligarh College, in support of Urdu infuriated MacDonal who threatened the trustees of the Aligarh College to stop the Government grant if Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk, the Secretary of the College and the students did not stop their anti-government activities. The threat did work to ease down the Muslims agitation as the Aligarh College was facing financial problems.

However, Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk did not stop his endeavours for the protection of Urdu. After the resignation of MacDonal, Nawab Mohsin-ul Mulk set up Anjuman-i-Tarakki-i-Urdu in Aligrah which rendered invaluable services for the cause of Urdu. It produced several books on Urdu literature under the supervision of Maulvi Abdul Haq, the Baba-i-Urdu.

The scraping of Urdu as an official language had significant and far-reaching impact on the political scene of the sub-continent. The blatant act of the Government to eliminate Urdu did a severe blow to the Muslim culture for it proudly contained the religious and cultural heritage of the India Muslims. The elimination of Urdu, in fact, would have meant the total extermination of the Muslims as a Nation.

The Hindus opposition to Urdu created a new political awareness among the Muslims who had come to realize the prejudicial Hindu approach toward Muslim and their culture. The Muslim now realized that both Hindus and British were not sincere towards them and to expect any justice and fairplay from the Hindus and British meant living in fools’ paradise. The anti-Urdu stance by the Hindus strengthened Muslim belief in the Two-Nation concept which later on came to be the crowing factor in the Muslims struggle for a separate homeland.

 

[ironman]

The scraping of Urdu as an official language had significant and far-reaching impact on the political scene of the sub-continent. The blatant act of the Government to eliminate Urdu did a severe blow to the Muslim culture for it proudly contained the religious and cultural heritage of the India Muslims. The elimination of Urdu, in fact, would have meant the total extermination of the Muslims as a Nation.

The Hindus opposition to Urdu created a new political awareness among the Muslims who had come to realize the prejudicial Hindu approach toward Muslim and their culture. The Muslim now realized that both Hindus and British were not sincere towards them and to expect any justice and fairplay from the Hindus and British meant living in fools’ paradise. The anti-Urdu stance by the Hindus strengthened Muslim belief in the Two-Nation concept which later on came to be the crowing factor in the Muslims struggle for a separate homeland.

"Elimination of Urdu, would have meant the total extermination of the Muslims as a Nation"...Seems like reasoning of a newly wedded wife "why we need a separate house". Its pity that we've quarreled about these BS's.

 

[Xeric]

"Elimination of Urdu, would have meant the total extermination of the Muslims as a Nation"...Seems like reasoning of a newly wedded wife "why we need a separate house". Its pity that we've quarreled about these BS's.

Well that's what you consider. i have omitted quite a few things, so sorry to say that you probably have missed out the details.

Yes, this would have meant 'total' extermination of Muslims as a Nation, as other than the religion this language was the only bond that kept us together, moreover what do think about snatching the only 'thing' that we had which kept us unique and differentiated from 'others'??

So let's just not complain about anything.

This what we find in our books and we believe in it, why dont you come up with 'something' that you have in your books to counter OUR claims, rather than pointing out the 'mistakes'

This is not the purpose of this thread

 

[ironman]

Seeing is believing. So you seriously believes that after 60 years of independence Hindus are close to its target of 'exterminating Muslims'.?

 

[Xeric]

Seeing is believing. So you seriously believes that after 60 years of independence Hindus are close to its target of 'exterminating Muslims'.?

How come?

 

[Jako]

Seeing is believing. So you seriously believes that after 60 years of independence Hindus are close to its target of 'exterminating Muslims'.?

no sir......but we cant disagree with the fact that, as long as people like varun gandhi,advani or modi are alive muslims of india wd always have a concern deep within their mind..,.....what happened 60 years ago was due to the deeds of some who were like this @§§h§#€s.....,...united india would have observed more bloodshed then........but divided india has more problems ,the biggest one being kashmir.....i dont see a solution to this in near future with divided india,coz noone is ready to spare any ground......maybe in future things wd improve,and with extrimists perishing subcontinent maybe united again,not with common flags but common goals..... thnx

 

[TopCat]

The sad part of Indian muslim, they have to be extra patriotic to be an Indian and sometimes more than any other religion and caste. India is still haunt by the Majority/Minority concept which should not be in a democracy.
This is completely my opinion as I felt while talking to Indian muslim and what I saw in the election campaign and in the Indian talk shows.

 

[Xeric]

The sad part of Indian muslim, they have to be extra patriotic to be an Indian and sometimes more than any other religion and caste. India is still haunt by the Majority/Minority concept which should not be in a democracy.
This is completely my opinion as I felt while talking to Indian muslim and what I saw in the election campaign and in the Indian talk shows.

Well that's remain a bitter truth!

It was only because if this 'fear' that a separate homeland was demanded and millions decided to leave india in favor of Pakistan, though many in similar figures decided to stay, but they (most of them) never remained as lucky after all.

 

[TopCat]

Well many hindus decided to leave Pakistan as well (now Bangladesh). But hindus in Bangladesh dont talk the way Muslim in India talks. I should say Hindus dont face the same question as Muslim in India face.